In response to the
shocking October report, Moores
wrote an editorial for the March 2004 issue of Forbes
Magazine summarizing the findings and airing his contention
that the UC was engaged in racially preferential admissions. But what followed was a prime illustration of
how far the UC Regents had swung to the left. In
1995, when the Board ended
affirmative action, every one of the
Regents was an appointee of a Republican governor.
At the November 2001 meeting which
established comprehensive review, five of the voting Regents were
appointees, joined by another three Democrats serving by virtue of
elected state office.
There were also
five Democrat appointees present
for the March 18, 2004 meeting of the Regents’ Education Committee. The meeting, which followed Moores’ fateful
column, resulted in the passage of an unprecedented resolution. Not only did it stubbornly reiterate the
Committee’s devotion to comprehensive review, but the resolution also
specifically condemned Moores’ public comments.
reiteration of support for
comprehensive review made clear that the Regents saw nothing wrong with
racial diversity achieved on the backs of better qualified whites and
Asians. But the condemnation of Moores –
simply for pointing out the elephant in the room – is disturbing
the depth of the radical commitments of the UC’s top policymakers.
the concept of diversity and the admissions policy of comprehensive
on the public’s sympathy for the general – and generally reasonable –
principles of fair play and opportunity for all. The
problem is that the proponents of
diversity – and comprehensive review – abuse that trust by operating a
different UCLA admissions regime. Having
here exposed UCLA’s corrupt admissions practices, we can call diversity
comprehensive review what they are – a racial sham foisted on all